I don't like having to repeat this, but I must stress an understanding of how bright the object is in comparison to the stars in the background. The focus of the photograph is the comet, not the stars in the background. The picture on the right is admittedly a composite of one photograph exposed enough to show the comet, while the jets are too dim to be seen all at once (like the stars), and another photo which is extremely exposed to show the jets. Also, I suppose at this zoomed-in distance, you probably wouldn't see many stars in your view anyway, because of the field of view being very narrow. Of course, that's speculation.

These scientists are doing their best with what they do get from NASA and the like, so don't blame them for a photographing problem when it isn't their photograph. They can still draw conclusions on how the Universe works, just not the little details that people on this site look for (like a little spaceship that probably bears little relevance to how comets work).

In short, the image on the right IS an artist's creation, but made of two photographs.

We really cannot rely on images which do not have all of the data in them. There is no background to these and we do not know what features have been added or replaced. The images I have seen of comets have all had the background blocked out which leads me to suspect MAJOR tampering.

The image on the right looks like an artists impression to me. If you have a source for these images which show proper data, I would be most pleased to look at it. Until then, it is all media rubbish with no substance.

The jet structure on comet Wild 2 is radically different from what orthodox comet models anticipated. Such jets pose no problem for the electrical model.

NASA's Stardust spacecraft snapped these photos of Comet Wild 2 on January 2, 2004. On the left is the comet nucleus and on the right a composite of the nucleus and a longer exposure highlighting the comet's jets. According to a recent press release, project scientists expected "a dirty, black, fluffy snowball" with a couple of jets that would be "dispersed into a halo". Instead they found more than two dozen jets that "remained intact"-they did not disperse in the fashion of a gas in a vacuum. Some of the jets emanated from the dark unheated side of the comet-an anomaly no one had expected. Chunks of the comet, some as big as bullets, blasted the spacecraft as it crossed three jets. Wild 2's surface was covered with "spires, pits and craters" that could only be supported by rock, not by sublimating ice or snow. The discovery was more than surprising, "it was mind-boggling".

When a theory's predictions are constantly discredited by new discoveries, it is "falsified". The unexpected blast of particles hitting Stardust is one small ding for the spacecraft's shield, but the Wild 2 anomalies are one giant fender-bender for the dirty snowball theory.

For many years now, the theory itself has obstructed the view of evidence, including close-up photographs of comets and asteroids. The NASA press release claims the comet "is unlike any other type of solar system body". Unlike Comet Borrelly, which sported unexpected "mountains, faults and grooves"? Unlike comet Halley, with its hot jets and diverse landscape? Unlike the steep-edged and flat-bottomed craters on asteroids Eros and Mathilda and Ida? Unlike the scarred surface of the Martian moon Phobos, virtually all the Jovian moons (especially the little ones), and now Saturn's little moon Phoebe? Every small solid body we've approached has surprised scientists with such sharply-defined surface relief.

The cascade of discovery has not surprised scientists investigating electrified plasma in space. But astronomers and astrophysicists are unaware of this century-old field of study. The structural details of the craters, grooves, cliffs, and other landforms, as well as the collimated jets, match those produced in plasma labs.

In the electrical hypothesis, a rock moving rapidly through the electric field of the Sun will develop a plasma sheath that stretches into a coma thousands of kilometers across and a filamentary tail that remains coherent over millions of kilometers. Arcing to the surface will generate high temperatures in small areas. The electrical activity will produce X-rays and ultraviolet light. The predictions of the model are testable, and the implications reach far beyond modern comet theory.

I will be periodically posting Thunderbolts articles in order to widen the scientific viewpoints of the general populace of this site, to give everyone a slightly more informed opinion that is less-biased than most sources. Take this space to comment on the article and subject matter. Do not strive off-topic.